... rightly judging that the city which is honored by the imperial authority and the senate and enjoys the same prerogatives as the imperial city of the Elder Rome, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical matters as she is, being second after her.

If this is the case then there is absolutely not one single Reference to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being based on anything other than having inheireted it from Peter in the 1st thousand years of Christianity with the exception of the following:

6th century Monophysite John Philoponos :

Because the bishop of Rome alone had authority in the imperial city, he obtained the precedence over all others by a certain usage, because of the greatness of the city and the imperial authority.

Has anyone been able to find anything else, i Have not.

I agree that For the reason you stated Vico, that this Canon could not possibly refer to the Primacy. However in a quote from St. Methodius he States:

It is not true, as this canon states that the holy fathers gave the primacy to Rome because it was the Capital of the empire; it is from on high, from grace divine, that the primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself "Peter, lovest me? Feed my sheep". that is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first see.

the word used by Methodius is Primacy, thus according to Methodius this canon does indeed refer to the Universal Primacy. But given the actual text of the Canon itself There in no way I can even begin to fathom how. Any comments from anyone on this?

Council of Chalcedon canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo. St. Methodius refers to "hierarchical order of Rome" in that canon. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in 1998 that "In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy." That means the understanding in the Church was incomplete, although all revelation of Truth was complete.

Ch. 1 - institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed PeterCh. 2 - permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffsCh. 3 - power and character of the primacy of the Roman PontiffCh. 4 - infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

I do not understand,The quote at least for me is difficult to understand.

Methodius:

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority... How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council... " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

I have underlined the part that is confusing. If Methodius is referring to something other than the Universal Primacy, why then does he mention Constantinople in such a manner as to say "by that same logic they should have the primacy, but they do not." If He was referring to a primacy other than the universal primacy, what other primacy could there be that Constantinople did not have? Constantinople was at this time I believe 2nd see and was a patriarchal See.

In any case I understand that Methodius basically says that it is not true what the canon says and that the people that wrote it were shady, but the underlined point above I simply fail to understand...Any Ideas or am I crazy?